Catch-up wrote:But people have shared some very personal things just to illustrate these points and I think it's important to acknowledge that.

And Batty has acknowledged that Catch-up and shared some of her own experiences as well, so it's not as if she's saying this girl is a liar, just that the report doesn't co-incide with her own perception of Starr. That's an opinion that's as valid as wanting to believe the allegation is probably true and Batty is arguably more sensible in following a long-held association than automatically assuming that it's true so long after the fact and potentially taken out of context?

This is the problem with public personalities and 'no smoke without fire' thinking - one adverse word, true or no, could make or potentially or break a reputation, which is why official enquiries never name people until they're sure they have sufficient evidence to move on it, because they may not have the 'right' information to act on. The perhaps related case about the Tory MP is a good example - that carries far worse allegations than the one Starr is responding to, of his own volition, and because it's highly likely arrests and custodial sentences will be made when the investigation is over it's only natural justice not to name suspects ahead of their being formally arrested or brought in for questioning, otherwise it's guilty until proved innocent isn't it?

For some crimes that might be a more fitting approach perhaps, but the chances of punishing someone who may in fact not be guilty at all is why the burden of showing proof is on the prosecution and enshrined in English law, no matter what the Red Top press like to think. Naming names and tossing them in the mud before a police enquiry is even conceived is potentially as bad as groping a defenceless child because mud sticks on reputations and careers. Perhaps we should turn this around and cast the press in the wrong here for this woman's sake as well as Starr's - it's just that he's the one with the public profile and so he's easier to vilify. By the same token, because she's come forward to the media instead of the police, she's also put her motivations on the line by courting publicity in the first place and laid herself open to opinions like Batty and mine - potentially she's bringing evidence to prominence in the wrong way so her version of the truth is tainted already?

"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw

All this woman has done is spoken out about abuse. But the opinion of a number of people on here is that she's lying - you should be detectives! The case appears to be closed against this woman already, which isn't open minded at all. I too don't believe that a man should be condemned on the report of one person, and if there's no other evidence then he should get off (innocent until proven guilty after all). But that doesn't mean that this woman is just after her 15 minutes of fame.

So does everyone believe her that she was molested by Saville, or is that potentially a lie too? She came forward before the media circus.

What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!

Jan Van Quirm wrote:He's responded to this accusation very swiftly and publicly several days ago and said he'd welcome a police interview - not exactly the actions of a man with some gruesome secret to hide

He lied about having met her, and about being on the programme, which are exactly the actions of a man with a gruesome secret to hide. Telling the truth from the start would have helped his case.

BTW, to everyone who thinks that one incident of groping a minor doesn't make him a paedophile, would it if she was 6, rather than 14? Is it her age that makes you think she's probably lying, or him not a paedophile? It seems that some people think that even if he did do it, it wasn't that big a deal anyway!

What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!

Dotsie wrote:He lied about having met her, and about being on the programme, which are exactly the actions of a man with a gruesome secret to hide. Telling the truth from the start would have helped his case.

He said he couldn't remember ever meeting her or being on the programme - is it a crime not to have total recall about something 30 years ago and you've a history of being off your face quite frequently? When they showed him on it he'd already said he'd be happy to clear things up with the police and they've got him on bail pending enquiries because he co-operated. They've also arrested Gary Glitter - has anyone been making allegations about him recently in the press? No. He's been interviewed (not arrested) because Savile's on record as sticking up for him when he was found out several years ago. Do we know what's happening with him yet? No and the same with Starr for now.

If and when either of them are charged in relation to the Savile revelations then yes, apologies for not believing allegations that shouldn't have been made public knowledge so prematurely. That's knowledge after the fact and not anticipating it which is what some people, however understandable that might be, seem to think has to be automatically inferred just because a whistle, however tragic, is blown without thought for how it might jeopardise a fair enquiry (because, I repeat, this is going to be a nightmare for the CPS to follow up if there are grounds to pursue a one off allegation after all this time).

Dotsie wrote:BTW, to everyone who thinks that one incident of groping a minor doesn't make him a paedophile, would it if she was 6, rather than 14? Is it her age that makes you think she's probably lying, or him not a paedophile? It seems that some people think that even if he did do it, it wasn't that big a deal anyway!

One incident does make him a paedophile - if it's proved. Her age at the time is immaterial - such an act is criminal and vile and if it took place should be punished. How much more clear do you need it? If it's proven that the act took place then Starr deserves everything thrown at him. As for groping not being a big deal - if she was raped that would be bigger wouldn't it? It's only a question of scale on the illegal. Until he's charged and sent for trial I'm more concerned about people who are only potentially involved getting dragged down in public ahead of proper investigation because the nation wants blood and the main pervert is beyond reach. That smacks of witch-hunt, especially if it turns out that Starr, trial or no trial, has nothing to answer for doesn't it?

Her age now could be material if her judgment sends her to the papers instead of the police who are manifestly now taking every allegation remotely centred around the sleaze-bag very seriously indeed - why do that after waiting all this time? Maybe Batty and I are too cynical about her - that's entirely possible, but this situation is being massaged for all it's worth by the press and not dealt with procedurally by the police whose job it is to make sure people who are like Savile go down. I'd rather leave it to the plods to come up with the goods than the tabloids thanks before I jump on this particular bandwagon.

"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw

It seems like you can't agree with things you've already said Jan, which makes this a difficult conversation to continue any further. If there's no more evidence to bring against this man, he won't be prosecuted anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!

Dotsie wrote:If there's no more evidence to bring against this man, he won't be prosecuted anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

That's all I'm saying Dotsie - if he's taken to trial I've no sympathy for him.

This discussion is based on opinions and essentially Batty and I were voicing doubts over some of the reports that are going around and because the ones against Starr didn't originate with the police. If you want to assign other interpretations or words onto what we've said then that's your preogative and, as you say, there's no point in getting into arguments over who said what. We can all agree that people who abuse children are beyond the pale and I'll shut up about it as well.

"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw

However, I am also getting PO'ed by this little saga. Can we at least leave aside the Jimmy Savile saga and its associated splash damage for at least, I dunno, a day or so? Allow tempers to cool a little? Just because you're (and by that, I mean all of us in the thread) entitled to an opinion doesn't mean that we are all entitled to it as well (with apologies to Paul Darrow and Terry Nation), and tempers are getting heated. Including my own. And we all know how well that ended for all concerned, including myself.

Dotsie wrote:It's always nice to be appreciated I'm not losing my temper, but if Q thinks I am then I'll step off

It was more the discussion was getting heated, and tempers were going to be inevitably lost, sooner or later, this side of madness or the other. Hell, for all I know, I would have lost my temper first.